That's irrelevant to the topic though. The person that I responded to was talking only about noise, not FPS and AF speed. Note the word the "ONLY REASON" in his post. That only reason was noise, not AF speed and fps. Strangely he also mentioned D3000, not the most impressive high ISO performance there.

Sony makes sensors for almost all Nikon cameras (not including D700/D3). The "better" noise on cameras like D90/D300 is probably due to better jpeg engine. The RAW should be similar to Sony A700 (v4 fw) that has the same sensor as D300. Sony just needs to improve the jpeg engine, which isn’t as good as Nikon. So let's see if they did any better with A500/A550.

Gordon said he will post high ISO comparison soon.

grahamnp wrote:

The A900 does not shoot or AF as fast as the D3 and it's not designed to. You are also forgetting the fact that the larger pixel pitch brings an increase in DR which cannot be replicated with the A900.

Why would anyone with a dSLR shoot in JPEG? I don't think mines ever been on jpeg at all.

Next, I print most of my images out, the Nikon ones that I took are far better than the sony ones I've printed out this year, I do like the sony's in the studio but would only shoot maybe 5% of the time in there. I am in no way bagging the Sony cameras, I love mine and will keep it around and look to build on it, so far 7 lenses a number of flashes and add-ons but I am going to buy a Nikon d700 and become a nikon user as my main camera because of the noise.
Like I've said 60% of the sport photographers use Nikon, the rest use Canon and I'm yet to see one use a Sony. Why? Because you have to shoot in low light and you need a camera that can handle that well, the Sonys don't.

Excellent, so you have a file that's 3x - 4x larger so it'll fill your hard drive faster. Again, if you get it mostly right in camera what does shooting RAW get you? People make it sound as if you can't PP a JPEG if you so wished ...

Good luck with your new Nikon. Sony doesn't make 12MP FF cameras. As
for why most pros use Nikon and Canon, well, duh. Sony is new to DSLR
business. Most pros are already invested in Nikon and Canon. They are
not going to sell everything and switch brands, especially when Sony
doesn't even have a pro DSLR that competes against D3 and 1DIV.

As for A900/A850, I stand by what I posted earlier. A900 will outperform
D700 at ISO 400 and lower. AND, if you resize A900’s 25 MP to 12 MP
(same size as D700), or print them equal size, the difference won't be
noticeable till ISO 1600 (or maybe even 3200).

Nikon D300 was widely regarded as the best high ISO APSC model.
However, if your resize A900 images to 12 MP (or print them equal size),
A900 will easily outperform D300

(the following comes from dpr forum, but originally imaging-resources)

A850 images were resized to the same size as Nikon D300

Last edited by OneGuy on Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

Nikon D300 was widely regarded as the best high ISO APSC model. However, if your resize A900 images to 12 MP (or print them equal size), A900 will easily outperform D300

APSC vs FF at high ISO? A bit of a skewed comparison, aye? Then you pick the D3 which is a high ISO, high FPS low MP camera and compare it to an A900 which is a high MP, medium format replacement at low ISO on what is essentially a studio shot. You might have shot yourself in the foot though, as you're showing that the D40 looks really good compared to both the D3 and A900 which are much more expensive cameras

Good luck with your new Nikon. Sony doesn't make 12MP FF cameras. As for why most pros use Nikon and Canon, well, duh. Sony is new to DSLR business. Most pros are already invested in Nikon and Canon. They are not going to sell everything and switch brands, especially when Sony doesn't even have a pro DSLR that competes against D3 and 1DIV.

As for A900/A850, I stand by what I posted earlier. A900 will outperform D700 at ISO 400 and lower. AND, if you resize A900’s 25 MP to 12 MP (same size as D700), or print them equal size, the difference won't be noticeable till ISO 1600 (or maybe even 3200).

Nikon D300 was widely regarded as the best high ISO APSC model. However, if your resize A900 images to 12 MP (or print them equal size), A900 will easily outperform D300

(the following samples comes from dpr forum)

A850 images were resized to the same size as Nikon D300

As I keep saying I am a fan of the Sony cameras and have one but I will not be buying a second one until the fix the noise at higher ISO's that I need to shoot under.

You keep saying downsize the a900 to the d300, but why not look at the a500 its a 12mp camera and wouldn't match the d300.

Sony IMO do not match Nikon in ISO but have their place and will only get better, I have seen results printed from just about every camera talked about here about this issue and the Nikon wins hands down.
I'm not just talking about inkjet, I'm talking c-type printing.

You keep saying downsize the a900 to the d300, but why not look at the a500 its a 12mp camera and wouldn't match the d300.

If you have evidence for this assertion, post it. Where did you see that comparison? I have yet to see A500 samples compared against D300.

D300 has the same sensor as A700. Sony makes the sensors for both. A700's RAW, after version 4 firmware update, is pretty close to D300. The jpeg however is worse.

I've got and seen prints, and as a photographer that is what photography is all about in the long run, a great print.
I couldn't care less for a 72DPI photo on a webpage, give me a 300DPI or higher print on good paper and we'll see the results.